Background: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication that develops after total joint arthroplasty (TJA), whose incidence is expected to increase over the years. Traditionally, surgical treatment of PJI has been based on algorithms, where early infections are preferably treated with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) and late infections with two-stage revision surgery. Two-stage revision is considered the “gold standard” for treatment of chronic prosthetic joint infection (PJI) as it enables local delivery of antibiotics, maintenance of limb-length and mobility, and easier reimplantation. Many studies have attempted to identify potential predicting factors for early diagnosis of PJI, but its management remains challenging. In this observational retrospective study, we investigated the potential role of inflammatory blood markers (neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), systemic inflammatory index (SII), systemic inflammatory response index (SIRI), and aggregate index of systemic inflammation (AISI)) as prognostic factors in two-stage exchange arthroplasty for PJI. Methods: A single-center retrospective analysis was conducted, collecting clinical data and laboratory parameters from patients submitted to prosthetic explantation (EP) for chronic PJI. Laboratory parameters (PCR, NLR, MLR, PLR, SIRI, SII, and AISI) were evaluated at the explantation time; at 4, 6, and 8 weeks after surgery; and at reimplantation time. The correlation between laboratory parameters and surgery success was evaluated and defined as infection absence/resolution at the last follow-up. Results: A total of 57 patients with PJI were evaluated (62% males; average age 70 years, SD 12.14). Fifty-three patients with chronic PJI were included. Nine patients underwent DAIR revision surgery and chronic suppressive therapy; two patients died. Nineteen patients completed the two-stage revision process (prosthetic removal, spacer placement, and subsequent replanting). Among them, none showed signs of reinfection or persistence of infection at the last available follow-up. The other twenty-three patients did not replant due to persistent infection: among them, some (the most) underwent spacer retention; others (fewer in number) were submitted to resection arthroplasty and arthrodesis (Girdlestone technique) or chronic suppressive antibiotic therapy; the remaining were, over time, lost to follow-up. Of the patients who concluded the two-stage revision, the ones with high SIRI values (mean 3.08 SD 1.7 and p-value 0.04) and MLR values (mean 0.4 SD 0.2 and p-value 0.02) at the explantation time were associated with a higher probability of infection resolution. Moreover, higher variation in the SIRI and PCR, also defined, respectively, as delta-SIRI (mean −2.3 SD 1.8 and p-value 0.03) and delta-PCR (mean −46 SD 35.7 and p-value 0.03), were associated with favorable outcomes. Conclusions: The results of our study suggest that, in patients with PJI undergoing EP, the SIRI and MLR values and delta-SIRI and delta-PCR values could be predictive of a favorable outcome. The evaluation of these laboratory indices, especially their determination at 4 weeks after removal, could therefore help to determine which patients could be successfully replanted and to identify the best time to replant. More studies analyzing a wider cohort of patients with chronic PJI are needed to validate the promising results of this study.

(1) Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) significantly impacts patients’ quality of life and negatively affects public healthcare costs. The aim of this systematic review is to identify the effectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs) in OA treatment across different anatomical districts, determining pain reduction and overall improvement in the patient’s quality of life. (2) Methods: In this systematic review following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials involving patients with osteoarthritis undergoing PEMF therapy. Seventeen studies (1197 patients) were included. (3) Results: PEMF therapy demonstrated positive outcomes across various anatomical districts, primarily in knee osteoarthritis. Pain reduction, assessed through VAS and WOMAC scores, showed significant improvement (60% decrease in VAS, 42% improvement in WOMAC). The treatment duration varied (15 to 90 days), with diverse PEMF devices used. Secondary outcomes included improvements in quality of life, reduced medication usage, and enhanced physical function. (4) Conclusions: Diverse PEMF applications revealed promising results, emphasizing pain reduction and improvement in the quality of life of patients. The variability in the treatment duration and device types calls for further investigation. This review informs future research directions and potential advancements in optimizing PEMF therapies for diverse osteoarthritic manifestations.